alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
      10.** **19**





**Supplemental
      Agreement of Lease Agreement for Personal**


**Care
      Products Production Equipment**






This
      Agreement is entered in Wuqing Tianjin on the 31 day of December
      2007.





Party
      A:
      Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Co., Ltd.


Address:
      No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin


Business
      License Number: 120000400036644


Legal
      Representative: Yiqun Wu





Party
      B:
      Tianjin Tianshi Biological Engineering Co., Ltd.


Address:
      No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin


Business
      License Number: 120222000001336


Legal
      Representative: Yiqun Wu





After
      sufficient negotiations, Party A and Party B agree to make the following
      amendments to the “Lease Agreement for Personal Care Products production
      Equipment” (the “Lease Agreement”) which was entered into by Party A and Party B
      in Wuqing Tianjin on the 31 st day of
      October 2007.





1.
      The
      Leased Equipment which Party B acknowledged and agreed to rent in the Article
      1.1 of the Lease Agreement is amended to as the equipment in the Exhibit 1
      of
      this Supplemental Agreement.





2.
      The
      Article 4.1 of the Lease Agreement is amended to as “The rent is Renminbi Forty
      One Thousand Two Hundred and Seventeen (RMB41, 217) per month and RMB Nine
      Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand and Two Hundred and Thirteen (RMB 989,213) in
      total
      through the lease term”.









Any
      inconsistencies between this Supplemental Agreement and the Lease Agreement
      shall, if any, be performed pursuant to this Supplemental Agreement. Any issue
      not referred to in this Supplemental Agreement shall be performed in accordance
      with the Lease Agreement.





This
      Supplemental Agreement has the same legal effect as the Lease Agreement and
      will
      be terminated or rescinded when the Lease Agreement is terminated or
      rescinded.





This
      Supplemental Agreement will become effective as of the day on which this
      Supplemental Agreement is signed and sealed by Party A and Party B.





This
      Agreement executes in two copies and each party takes one, which shall be in
      the
      same legal effect.








Party
      A:
      Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Co., Ltd




[COMPANY
      SEAL AFFIXED]




Address:
      No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin


Business
      License Number: 120000400036644


Legal
      Representative: Yiqun Wu


/s/
      Yiqun
      Wu






Party
      B:
      Tianjin Tianshi Biological Engineering Co., Ltd




[COMPANY
      SEAL AFFIXED]




Address:
      No.6 Yuanquan Road, Wuqing New-tech Industry Park, Tianjin


Business
      License Number: 120222000001336


Legal
      Representative: Yiqun Wu


/s/
      Yiqun
      Wu




2
EXHIBIT 32.1  SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the Annual Report of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Harry Chew Harry Chew Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer May 29, 2007
# C_2022128EN.01001701.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ethoprophos - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)

(2022/C 128/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>               1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                     Dec-31-1997  
<CASH>                                                    87  
<SECURITIES>                                               0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                            714  
<ALLOWANCES>                                              10  
<INVENTORY>                                                0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         810  
<PP&E>                                                   628  
<DEPRECIATION>                                           362  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,283  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,003  
<BONDS>                                                    0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0  
<PREFERRED>                                                0  
<COMMON>                                                   6  
<OTHER-SE>                                               274  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,283  
<SALES>                                                  921  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         921  
<CGS>                                                      0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,128  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        11  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (218)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (218)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0  
<CHANGES>                                                  0  
<NET-INCOME>                                           (218)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.36)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.36)  
                                               


</TABLE>
# C_2019357EN.01000402.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/4 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Appeal brought on 16 April 2019 by  ND ( *1 ),  OE ( *1 ) against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 February 2019 in Case T-581/18,  ND ( *1 ) e  OE ( *1 ) v Commission (Case C-317/19 P) (2019/C 357/06) Language of the case: French Parties Appellants: ND ( *1 ),  OE ( *1 ) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer) Other party to the proceedings: European Commission By order of 3 September 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal. ( *1 )  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended February 29, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank D. Puissegur, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:  February 25, 2013

/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
#### HARKOW, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Respondent. (Action No. 13.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Joseph H. Harkow against the New York City Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed on argument, with costs, on the authority of Ketchum v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., 118 App. Div. 248, 103 Ñ. Y. Supp. 486. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. See 105 N. Y. Supp. 689, 691.

RICH, J., dissents.
#### SOUTHERN RY. CO. V. WILSON.

*i)j<nntnes.*

(Decided Nov. 28, 1907.)

Appeal from Colbert Circuit Court.

Heard before Hou. Joseph II. Nathan.

Humes & Spbake, *for*appellant.

James Jackson and James H. Branch, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Dismissed by agreement.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of MPSI Systems Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Bryan D. Gross, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and James C. Auten, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of his knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/   Bryan D. GrossBryan D. Gross, President(Chief Executive Officer)Date:May 13, 2004 /s/   James C. AutenJames C. Auten, Vice President(Chief Financial Officer)Date:May 13, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NEOMAGIC
CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH
PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          45,918
<SECURITIES>                                    55,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,037
<PP&E>                                          20,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,358
<SALES>                                         38,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,877
<CGS>                                           40,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,507)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00316-CV

In re Don Bonifay, Individually and d/b/a Bonifay & Associates

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BLANCO COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Don Bonifay, individually and d/b/a Bonifay & Associates, filed his petition

for writ of mandamus, asking the Court to direct the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion

to transfer venue. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Having reviewed the petition, the record, the response, 

and the reply, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and lift the stay of the underlying

proceedings. See id. R. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Cindy Olson Bourland, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Bourland

Filed: September 14, 2016
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                               NATIONAL CITY BANK
                   NATIONAL CITY AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 2002-A

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of National City Bank
("National City"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement
dated as of March 1, 2002, as amended and supplemented from time to time (the
"Agreement"), between National City, as Seller, Servicer, Administrator and
Custodian, The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee, National City Auto
Receivables Trust 2002-A, as Issuer, and National City Vehicle Receivables Inc.,
as Depositor, does hereby certify as follows:

1. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective meanings as
set forth in the Agreement.

2. National City is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.

3. The undersigned is an officer of National City who is duly authorized
pursuant the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
Trustee.

4. This Certificate relates to the activities of the Servicer for January 1,
2005 through December 31, 2005 and a review of such activities and of the
Servicer's performance of its obligations under the Agreement was conducted
under my supervision.

5. Based on such review, to the best knowledge of the undersigned, the Servicer
has performed in all material respects all its obligations under the Agreement
through the above period and no default in the performance of such obligations
has occurred or it continuing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed and delivered this
Certificate this 31st day of March, 2006.

NATIONAL CITY BANK
As Servicer

By: /s/ Mark S. Palko
-------------------------

Name: Mark S. Palko
Title: Vice President
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 CELEBRATE BIRTHDAY OF KING KAMEHA5 MEHA. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

8 event on June 5, 2011, to celebrate the birthday of King 

9 Kamehameha. 

10 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

11 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

12 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as may 

13 be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the Senate May 10, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 16 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

the birthday of King Kamehameha. Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate
#### MEYER SILVERMAN *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MORTIMER ELLIOTT *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Mr. Mortimer Klliott in propria persona.*

*Mr. Frederick J. Johnson, Jr.,*for the respondents.

April 8, 1960.

Denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinewire Networks Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick Ward, the President, Treasurer and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)	the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 30, 2004

Patrick Ward

/s/ Patrick Ward		______________________
President, Treasurer and Director 
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer 
and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Debra Van Winkle, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond Van Winkle, Deceased, Appellant, v David Kiley et al., Respondents.

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries and wrongful death, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 16, 1985, as (1) denied her motion to strike the second affirmative defense of the defendants Kiley and Fogarty that plaintiff’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation, and (2) granted the cross motion of the defendants for summary judgment dismissing the first, second and third causes of action of the complaint.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Felig at Special Term *(see also, Heritage v Van Patten, 59*NY2d 1017, 1018-1019; *Samba v Delligard,*116 AD2d 563). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1784SI

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Martin Wayne Stoner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: October 15, 1998

Filed: October 21, 1998

_____________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Wayne Stoner appeals his drug-related convictions for conspiring to

distribute and distributing methamphetamine. Stoner contends the evidence does not

support his convictions. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied sufficient

evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find Stoner guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. See United States v. Rogers, 91 F.3d 53, 57 (8th Cir. 1996). Stoner

was present at two police-controlled drug deals, supplied his coconspirator with

methamphetamine, and allowed his coconspirator to negotiate a drug deal from his

residence. Stoner also contends the district court erroneously admitted into evidence

marijuana discovered in his vehicle following his arrest. Stoner asserts the Government
-2-

used this evidence to prove his criminal disposition. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). We

disagree. The police testified marijuana was linked with police-controlled purchases of

methamphetamine, and thus the quantities of marijuana offered to undercover police

officers and found in Stoner’s vehicle were connected with the crimes charged and were

not Rule 404(b) evidence of other crimes. See United States v. Luna, 94 F.3d 1156,

1162 (8th Cir. 1996). Additionally, the evidence would be admissible under Rule

404(b) to show Stoner’s knowledge and intent to distribute drugs, and the evidence is

more probative than prejudicial. 

Stoner also argues the district court denied his Sixth Amendment confrontation

right when the district court prevented Stoner from cross examining a Government

witness about the identity of a confidential informant. Stoner concedes the Government

did not have to disclose the informant’s identity unless Stoner showed the evidence was

material. See United States v. Sykes, 977 F.2d 1242, 1245-46 (8th Cir. 1992).

Although the informant conducted a controlled buy from Stoner’s residence, Stoner

failed to establish materiality because the informant did not participate in the offenses

for which Stoner was charged nor did the Government plan to call the informant to

testify against Stoner. See United States v. Harrington, 951 F.2d 876, 878 (8th Cir.

1991). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion because Stoner could

not show the disclosure of the informant’s name would aid in Stoner’s defense. See

Sykes, 977 F.2d at 1245-46. Finally, Stoner should raise his ineffective assistance of

counsel claim collaterally rather than on direct appeal. See United States v. Rhodenizer,

106 F.3d 222, 227 (8th Cir. 1997). 

We affirm Stoner’s convictions.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.